From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
tytso@mit.edu, snitzer@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
jannh@google.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
eparis@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
agk@redhat.com, serge@hallyn.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 12/16] fsverity|security: add security hooks to fsverity digest and signature
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 11:11:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b2695ac-f6db-ac75-5451-4ea9667ce04f@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXodhzYto5BRxqYO@sol.localdomain>
On 10/27/2021 8:48 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 12:03:53PM -0700, Deven Bowers wrote:
>>>> The proposed LSM (IPE) of this series will be the only one to need
>>>> this information at the moment. IPE’s goal is to have provide
>>>> trust-based access control. Trust and Integrity are tied together,
>>>> as you cannot prove trust without proving integrity.
>>> I think you mean authenticity, not integrity?
>> I’ve heard a lot of people use these terms in overloaded ways.
>>
>> If we’re working with the definition of authenticity being
>> “the property that a resource was _actually_ sent/created by a
>> party”, and integrity being “the property that a resource was not
>> modified from a point of time”, then yes. Though the statement isn’t
>> false, though, because you’d need to prove integrity in the process of
>> proving authenticity.
>>
>> If not, could you clarify what you mean by authenticity and integrity,
>> so that we can use consistent definitions?
> In cryptography, integrity normally means knowing whether data has been
> non-maliciously changed, while authenticity means knowing whether data is from a
> particular source, which implies knowing whether it has been changed at all
> (whether maliciously or not). Consider that there are "Message Authentication
> Codes" (MACs) and "Authenticated Encryption", not "Message Integrity Codes" and
> "Intact Encryption".
>
> Unfortunately lots of people do overload "integrity" to mean authenticity, so
> you're not alone. But it's confusing, so if you're going to do that then please
> make sure to clearly explain what you mean.
>
>>> Also how does this differ from IMA? I know that IMA doesn't support fs-verity
>>> file hashes, but that could be changed. Why not extend IMA to cover your use
>>> case(s)?
>> We looked at extending IMA to cover our requirements extensively the past
>> year
>> based on feedback the last time I posted these patches. We implemented a
>> prototype that had half of our requirements, but found it resulted in a
>> large change list that would result in a large amount of pain in respect
>> to maintenance, in addition to other more architectural concerns about the
>> implementation. We weren’t convinced it was the correct direction, for our
>> needs.
>>
>> There was a presentation done at LSS 2021 around this prototype done by my
>> colleague, Fan, who authored this patch and implemented the aforementioned
>> prototype.
>>
>> In general, IMA provides a whole suite of amazing functionality when it
>> comes to everything integrity, as the fs-verity documentation states
>> itself:
>>
>> IMA specifies a system-wide policy that specifies which
>> files are hashed and what to do with those hashes, such
>> as log them, authenticate them, or add them to a
>> measurement list.
>>
>> Instead, IPE provides a fine-tuned way to _only_ enforce an access control
>> policy to these files based on the defined trust requirements in the policy,
>> under various contexts, (you might have different requirements for what
>> executes in a general purpose, versus loadable kernel modules, for example).
>> It will never provide bother to log, measure, or revalidate these hashes
>> because
>> that’s not its purpose. This is why it belongs at the LSM layer instead of
>> the
>> integrity subsystem layer, as it is providing access control based on a
>> policy,
>> versus providing deep integrations with the actual integrity claim.
>>
>> IPE is trying to be agnostic to how precisely “trust” is provided, as
>> opposed to be deeply integrated into the mechanism that provides
>> “trust”.
> IMA doesn't require logging or "measuring" hashes, though. Those are just some
> of its supported features. And I thought the IMA developers were planning to
> add support for fs-verity hashes, and that it wouldn't require an entirely new
> architecture to do so.
>
> Anyway, while it does sound to me like you're duplicating IMA, I don't really
> have a horse in this race, and I defer to the IMA developers on this. I trust
> that you've been engaging with them? This patchset isn't even Cc'ed to
> linux-integrity, so it's unclear that's been happening.
That was entirely my mistake. Mimi and the linux-integrity list was CC'd
on previous
versions (Roberto actually added the list to his responses) - when I was
reconstructing
the To: line with get-maintainers.pl, the list didn't pop up and I did
not remember to
add it manually. I've corrected my mailing script to re-add them again.
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-28 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-13 19:06 [RFC PATCH v7 00/16] Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE) deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 01/16] security: add ipe lsm & initial context creation deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 02/16] ipe: add policy parser deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 03/16] ipe: add evaluation loop deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 04/16] ipe: add userspace interface deven.desai
2021-11-03 9:42 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-11-04 16:50 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 05/16] ipe: add LSM hooks on execution and kernel read deven.desai
2021-10-13 20:04 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-10-15 19:25 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-25 12:22 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-26 19:03 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-27 8:56 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 06/16] uapi|audit: add trust audit message definitions deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 07/16] ipe: add auditing support deven.desai
2021-10-13 20:02 ` Steve Grubb
2021-10-15 19:25 ` Deven Bowers
2021-11-02 19:44 ` Steve Grubb
2021-11-04 16:59 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-13 22:54 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-10-15 19:25 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-15 19:50 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-10-26 19:03 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 08/16] ipe: add permissive toggle deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 09/16] ipe: introduce 'boot_verified' as a trust provider deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 10/16] fs|dm-verity: add block_dev LSM blob and submit dm-verity data deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 11/16] ipe: add support for dm-verity as a trust provider deven.desai
2021-11-25 9:37 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-11-30 18:55 ` Deven Bowers
2021-12-01 16:37 ` [RFC][PATCH] device mapper: Add builtin function dm_get_status() Roberto Sassu
2021-12-01 16:43 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-12-02 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-02 7:59 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-12-02 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-02 9:29 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-12-03 6:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-03 10:20 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-12-06 10:57 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 12/16] fsverity|security: add security hooks to fsverity digest and signature deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:24 ` Eric Biggers
2021-10-15 19:25 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-15 20:11 ` Eric Biggers
2021-10-20 15:08 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-22 16:31 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-26 19:03 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-27 8:41 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-26 19:03 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-27 9:34 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-28 3:48 ` Eric Biggers
2021-10-28 18:11 ` Deven Bowers [this message]
2021-11-03 12:28 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-11-04 17:12 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 13/16] ipe: enable support for fs-verity as a trust provider deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 14/16] scripts: add boot policy generation program deven.desai
2021-11-03 16:43 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-11-03 16:53 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-11-04 16:52 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 15/16] ipe: kunit tests deven.desai
2021-10-13 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v7 16/16] documentation: add ipe documentation deven.desai
2021-10-25 11:30 ` [RFC PATCH v7 00/16] Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE) Roberto Sassu
2021-10-26 19:03 ` Deven Bowers
2021-10-27 8:26 ` Roberto Sassu
2021-10-28 20:36 ` Deven Bowers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9b2695ac-f6db-ac75-5451-4ea9667ce04f@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).